Countries no longer have secure borders, people can easily move around and we had better get used to it.
People can't be expected to move a relatively short distance within a country to where there are resources for them to live?

As for "social cleansing", might have some sympathy with that view if the left in this country hadn't facilitated it happening in other countries by accepting their poor into this country.

But that's the point isn't it - there aren't the resources in Stoke for them to live. There is a shortage of housing for Stoke's own residents - and an influx of high need families will place untold strain on other resources such as school, social services and so on.

I heard that Newham had written to every housing association in the country asking if they could offload their housing waiting list - I doubt very much they'll get any takers - where on earth in this country do we have a surplus of social housing?

You might as well say ... How long before they decide that there is no work to be had around here so they had better move to where there is some.

100% correct, Except for the part where you totally miss the point, which is 100% of what you just did,
No one is even suggesting people shouldn't be free to move to look for work,
But that's a 'tad' different to forcing someone to move, or it just me who sees that?

Quote:

In other words she had to stop work because of illness rather than being fit and unemployed because there was no work, and no prospect of work.

Again a point totally missed, This proposal is aimed at people claiming housing benefit, and not 'only' the unemployed, disabled people, dying people, even working but low paid people get housing benefit,

Quote:

I was made redundant in December 2006, after my job was effectively moved down to the West country, and I'm just counting the days until I am in just such a position.

There doesn't seem to that many jobs around my neck of the woods. I'll probably end up part time stacking shelves in a shop, unless they've given all the jobs to people forced off IB or whatever, or something else for which I have no experience.

If it wasn't for family commitments I might well have to relocate.

Despite living here all my life I have no friends around here and my remaining family are all past retirement age.

I have been made redundant so many times I've honestly lost count, But then I am 59 and a survivour of Thatchers war on the working class,
Stacking shelves? I've done jobs that make shelf stacking seem a massive skill improvement, and despite family commitments I HAVE moved out of my home city 3 times, (once over to the Irish republic for 6 years)

But that's the point isn't it - there aren't the resources in Stoke for them to live. There is a shortage of housing for Stoke's own residents - and an influx of high need families will place untold strain on other resources such as school, social services and so on.

I heard that Newham had written to every housing association in the country asking if they could offload their housing waiting list - I doubt very much they'll get any takers - where on earth in this country do we have a surplus of social housing?

And Newham doesn't face those challenges of course - it has one of the highest birth rates in the country and has seen its population grow massively due to migration. And it has a far bigger housing waiting list per head than Stoke - and rents/house prices substantially higher by several times,

Why should London councils/Londoners have to bear most/all of the burden/costs of population growth and migration?

You could have made the same arguments about Stoke as people in Barking and Dagenham were making 10 years ago about people moving in from Newham.

And Newham doesn't face those challenges of course - it has one of the highest birth rates in the country and has seen its population grow massively due to migration. And it has a far bigger housing waiting list per head than Stoke - and rents/house prices substantially higher by several times,

Why should London councils/Londoners have to bear most/all of the burden/costs of population growth and migration?

You could have made the same arguments about Stoke as people in Barking and Dagenham were making 10 years ago about people moving in from Newham.

Perhaps the new Mayor, whoever he might be, should introduce some visa system to control the number of people flocking to London.

And Newham doesn't face those challenges of course - it has one of the highest birth rates in the country and has seen its population grow massively due to migration. And it has a far bigger housing waiting list per head than Stoke - and rents/house prices substantially higher by several times,

Why should London councils/Londoners have to bear most/all of the burden/costs of population growth and migration?

You could have made the same arguments about Stoke as people in Barking and Dagenham were making 10 years ago about people moving in from Newham.

Were they being forced to move? either by physical force of by being faced with living on the street?
Which would be the end result of cutting their benefit to the point where they can no longer afford the rent.

They seem a bit insular in Stoke - "Lock the gates quick" "NOT IN OUT BACK YARD" etc. - wonder what the response would be if London prevented people from Stoke moving there in search of work.

Well aside from the obvious that the incomers would be using the same resources (housing, hospitals, schools, jobs, what not) as the locals there's also the extra money that Newham council has promised landlords if they house one of their people instead of a local - so instantly the locals are at a disadvantage for housing.

And Newham doesn't face those challenges of course - it has one of the highest birth rates in the country and has seen its population grow massively due to migration. And it has a far bigger housing waiting list per head than Stoke - and rents/house prices substantially higher by several times,

Why should London councils/Londoners have to bear most/all of the burden/costs of population growth and migration?

You could have made the same arguments about Stoke as people in Barking and Dagenham were making 10 years ago about people moving in from Newham.

But you aren't solving the problem - you are just moving it from one place to another.

EDIT: The Strategic Director of Housing & Regeneration at Westminster City Council, Ben Denton has said on record and on the radio that rents are going UP and that Westminster City Council is considering the idea of sending homeless people up to Derby or Nottingham.

Except that Nottingham faces people being forced out of their homes... because of the housing benefit caps!

And Newham doesn't face those challenges of course - it has one of the highest birth rates in the country and has seen its population grow massively due to migration. And it has a far bigger housing waiting list per head than Stoke - and rents/house prices substantially higher by several times,
Why should London councils/Londoners have to bear most/all of the burden/costs of population growth and migration?

You could have made the same arguments about Stoke as people in Barking and Dagenham were making 10 years ago about people moving in from Newham.

They shouldn't but sending or trying to send them to other areas that are econmically deprived is senseless.

But you aren't solving the problem - you are just moving it from one place to another.

Average rents in Stoke are far cheaper than in Newham - you could probably rent a four bed house in Stoke for the price of a one bed flat in Stratford. So it does solve a rather pressing problem - saving the taxpayer money and helping to cut the deficit.

Compare this 3 bed detached house with a driveway and room for several cars to park in Stoke for £795 a month rent

Average rents in Stoke are far cheaper than in Newham - you could probably rent a four bed house in Stoke for the price of a one bed flat in Stratford. So it does solve a rather pressing problem - saving the taxpayer money and helping to cut the deficit.

Don't think anyone has denied it. But foisting people on another area that has it's own problems with accommodation, jobs, etc does make it look as if money is more important than people.

Average rents in Stoke are far cheaper than in Newham - you could probably rent a four bed house in Stoke for the price of a one bed flat in Stratford. So it does solve a rather pressing problem - saving the taxpayer money and helping to cut the deficit.

And if they rent, pensioners in receipt of means tested pension credit will almost certainly qualify for housing benefit, too.

Should they also moved to places with cheaper rents - saving the taxpayer money and helping to cut the deficit ?

Average rents in Stoke are far cheaper than in Newham - you could probably rent a four bed house in Stoke for the price of a one bed flat in Stratford. So it does solve a rather pressing problem - saving the taxpayer money and helping to cut the deficit.

Compare this 3 bed detached house with a driveway and room for several cars to park in Stoke for £795 a month rent

Average rents in Stoke are far cheaper than in Newham - you could probably rent a four bed house in Stoke for the price of a one bed flat in Stratford. So it does solve a rather pressing problem - saving the taxpayer money and helping to cut the deficit.

Compare this 3 bed detached house with a driveway and room for several cars to park in Stoke for £795 a month rent

But it's not private rentals in Stoke that Newham wants is it - it wants Stoke's housing association to house them.

And won't housing association rents be cheaper as well in Stoke - reflecting local market factors.

And potentially the housing association could rent via private landlords if there are insufficient housing association homes - so you house a family for possibly a quarter of the rent you would pay in Newham for a four bed home.